2

There is a library licensed under Apache License 2.0 that I extended its functionality in multiple new Classes. Also some of the original Classes of the project had to be modified in which some of them slightly changed but some modified a lot. Multiple new methods was added and some older methods changed and some moved and etc. Now I think the library is more useful than before.

I know in Apache License one can create a Derivate work from an original source or object.

Subject to the part 4 of the license (4. Redistribution), I created prominent notices in modified files that I modified or added these parts.

Also I'm going to bring the original Notice files and also any materials are needed to show my respect and thanks to the original work.

Now my problem is in the modified files. Above each file, there is a notice like this in the form of comments:

Licensed to the SOME_NAME under one
or more contributor license agreements.  See the NOTICE file
distributed with this work for additional information
regarding copyright ownership.  The SOME_NAME licenses this file
to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 ...

I don't know how to deal with those notices. For example in the case of notice files, I can put

Copyright [yyyy] My Identity

in the original Notice.

But in the source files, should I keep that notices about

Licensed to the SOME_NAME

above the modified source codes even though I've modified them?

Also I don't know its worth mentioning or not that I'm going to keep the license to be as Apache in my work.

Thank you for your interest in subject and helping me.

  • 2
    The simplest solution is to leave all the existing notices alone. If you want to add extra comments on what you have done, make them an addition to what's already there. If you have modified files, then they are derivative works, so the original copyright holders still have rights over the new files. – Simon B Feb 26 '15 at 15:36
  • Thank you @SimonB. Yes your right. Its the simplest. So you think adding additional notice that these modifications belong to me is sufficient and is not that leaving "Licensed to the SOME_NAME" part means that my modifications still belong to the original licensor? – madz Feb 26 '15 at 19:35
  • The better question is obviously I don't have rights over the the whole project, but really they have rights over the new files in derivative works in apache license? – madz Feb 26 '15 at 21:14
  • 1
    Brand new files are yours, and you can licence them how you like. If a file is modified, then whoever had rights over it still has rights - all the parts of it that they created are still theirs. – Simon B Mar 2 '15 at 8:37
  • Is SOME_NAME is actually some real name? Can you put here the exact/full copy of the licence text? If this code is licence only to a person X - than technically a person Y doesn't have permission to use and modify the code at all - let alone licence it to others. So please clarify this. – Dipan Mehta Jul 11 '15 at 17:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.